A member of the Kanu Global Legal Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has challenged the legal basis of the conviction of Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 should have governed his trial.
Ifedi, speaking in honour of Kanu a day after Kanu’s 59th birthday , said Kanu’s demand during the proceedings that the court “show me the law” raised questions concerning the applicable legislation.
He cited Sections 36(6)(a) and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, arguing that a person could only be convicted of a criminal offence where the offence and its penalty were provided for in a written law in force at the relevant time.
According to him, the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 had been repealed in May 2022, while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 was the legislation in force.
He said the central question was: “Which written law was in force on 20 November 2025?”
Ifedi argued that the trial should have proceeded under the 2022 Act rather than the repealed 2013 legislation.
He also cited Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, which he said required courts to take judicial notice of Nigerian laws.
According to Ifedi, Kanu had specifically asked the court to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Act.
He said Justice J.K. Omotosho, in his judgment, had “assume[d] without conceding” that the 2013 Act was repealed.
Ifedi also relied on previous Supreme Court decisions, including Orugbo v. Una, Ogbomor v. The State, Nwankwoala v. FRN and A.G. Lagos v. Dosunmu, in support of his argument concerning trials conducted under repealed legislation.
He further cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, arguing that pending proceedings under the repealed 2013 Act were required to be migrated and continued under the 2022 legislation.
“The National Assembly did not leave room for judicial discretion,” Ifedi said, referring to the provisions.
He argued that the trial court did not migrate the proceedings, amend the charge or re-arraign Kanu under the 2022 Act.
Ifedi also questioned the application of Section 98(3), which he described as a savings provision, arguing that it did not permit a repealed law to continue governing a criminal conviction.
He said the legality of the conviction would depend, among other issues, on the legislation under which Kanu was convicted.
“Ogbomor v. The State does not ask how many witnesses were called, how loud the rhetoric was, or how thick the court files grew,” he said.
“It asks one lethal question: Was the law Justice Omotosho used to convict Kanu alive on the day of conviction?”
Ifedi said the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 “died on 12 May 2022” and maintained that the 2022 Act should have governed the proceedings.
